Monday, July 29, 2013

The Personbility of God, Part 3

From the April 2010 E-Block.

**For this installment, I had planned to look into
passages in which the believer is called a “friend” of God, as in
John’s Gospel when Jesus says that he calls us not servants, but
friends. The answer was simple enough, and didn’t require much research:
“Friend” in such connotations indicates essentially an ally with whom
one’s plans are shared, with no overlay of intimacy implied; thus for
example Pilate is threatened with the spectre of no longer being a
“friend of Caesar” – someone in Caesar’s service, not someone who had
frequent personal conversations with Caesar or went to his house for a
BBQ.

Unfortunately, with that being all I found, that didn’t make for much of an article.

So, we’ll also use this chance to revisit Part 1 of this series,
occasioned by two findings that came along at the right time: John
MacArthur’s A Tale of Two Sons (TTS), which interprets the
parable of the Prodigal in the way with which we disagreed; and some
questions from an earnest reader about that first article. For the sake
of readers newly subscribing, we’ll provide context by reprinting the
earlier article. Those who have already seen that article and do not
need to re-read it may wish to page down to the next hard return line.
Exegetes who view God in a more personal way will generally take one of two approaches with this text.

It may be argued that the father in the story is meant to represent
God. Additionally, it may be said that the younger son represents the
covenant of grace, while the older brother represents the covenant of
law.

Alternatively, it may be argued that although the father is not
meant to be God, his reception of the younger son is meant to
illustrate God’s loving grace in receiving the repentant sinner.

It is our contention that the first view is completely off base, and
the second is more accurate, albeit sometimes too much colored by our
understanding of “love” in terms of sentimentality. We will defend this
view with a series of questions and answers. Our primary source of
information is an essay by Richard Rohrbaugh from the book Jesus and His Parables
titled, “A Dysfunctional Family and its Neighbors” although we are
using general background knowledge from the social sciences to validate
his findings as well.

Is the father in the story meant to be God? If so, it
should first be noted that there is little to commend such an equation,
save by begging the question that an analogy to God’s grace is to be
found in the first place. Jesus does not say that the father is the
Father, though in the form of a parable, this is not strictly necessary.
More important is that if the father here is the Father, then we are
led to the conclusion that so is the shepherd who left his sheep
(15:4-7) and the woman who lost a coin (15:8-9). Do we wish to
hypothesize that God leaves us to our own devices (the ninety-nine),
unprotected from wolves, while he goes to find one lost sheep? Do we
wish to hypothesize that He is capable of losing track of us? This is an
important point, moreso than we may realize, for from a cultural
perspective, the unfortunate fact is that the father in this parable is a
thoroughly inept fool – he commits a number of horrendous breaches of
the social code, such as:

Abandoning his place as the head of the family by acquiescing to his
son’s unreasonable, insulting demands – thereby also abandoning his
honor and authority in the larger village social structure.

Similarly, doing the same with his elder son at the end of the
story, begging him to go into the party (he should rather be issuing a
direct order to the eldest son to participate).

As even exegetes in favor of the two above positions acknowledge, humiliating himself by lifting his robe and running.

It does not seem likely that Jesus would intend to portray the Father
with such unflattering images. The family in this scenario would become
disgraced in the eyes of the village they lived in. Indeed, what many
commentators have not recognized in the past is that, despite the elder
son’s words, the fatted calf is killed as a way of trying to reconcile
the family with the rest of the village: A fatted calf would have too
much meat for just one family, and the rest of the village would have
despised the entire family for setting a poor example that others in the
village might be tempted to follow.

Relatedly, are the sons meant to parallel the two covenants of grace and law?
The basis for this seems to be little more than that the younger son
“repents” when he goes back to the father. But strictly speaking, the
son says and does nothing that can be clearly equated with Christian
repentance. The phrase “came to himself” is sometimes read this way, but
there are no parallel usages in other literature that can validate this
meaning, and it needs mean no more than that he came to recognize in
practice how far his situation had changed. The younger son’s motivation
for return is also not coherent with Christian repentance, for he
returns out of need to fill his stomach, and he offers to come work for
his father – which would amount to an illustration of salvation by
works, if the analogy is to hold. (It is not clear whether he does go on
to work for his father, but under normal circumstances, he would be
expected to indeed participate in the survival of the family – in other
words, work.)

In addition, there is actually little to indicate that the
youngest son engaged in sinful activities when he squandered his
inheritance. The older son’s charge of spending the money on harlots can
hardly be taken seriously; he was not on the younger son’s tail
watching what he did in a faraway land. The charge is a case of deviance
labeling, a stock insult, as opposed to a clinical observation. The
words translated above “riotous living” also tell no such tale of
necessity; the word used does mean excess, but this is just as well
interpreted in terms of unwise stewardship, of a “boy from the country”
not knowing how to manage his finances in the big city. (Rohrbaugh
applies the example of modern Third World peasants who spend all their
money when visiting cities.)

This may be of little relevance, since the son could arguably
still have plenty to repent for, notably the way he treated his father.
However, it remains that there is no clear statement of repentance by
the son. He admits his error, but this is just as well seen as an
admission preparatory to regaining his place in the family – in other
words, he is not sorry he did it because he is repentant, but because of
the penalty he undergoes.

Thus there is little to recommend an analogy to the covenant of
grace, for what parallels may be found are too generalized. Perhaps the
most important point is that there is no parallel to the atonement in
this parable – and exegetes who admit this claim that to say so is to
“miss the point.” But it can be said in turn that the charge of “missing
the point” itself begs the question.

What about the fact that the father says that the younger son was once lost and dead, but is now found and alive?
In this case, we should be careful of not reading into these terms
later soteriology (or even John Newton’s hymnology). The words “lost,”
“found,” “dead” and “alive” had yet to acquire such a semantic overlay;
let it be kept in mind, for example, that in an agonistic setting, a
deviant may be treated as though “dead”. It is in those terms that these
words should be interpreted.

So what, it may be asked, do we do with the points of contact
Jesus does offer us – of how, in his words in the prior, smaller
parables, heaven rejoices over one lost sinner returning? We would
maintain that the point of this parable is much the same as the others,
effectively operating as qal wahomer: what applies in a less
important case will apply in a more important case. The subjects of the
three parables are 1) a foolish shepherd who abandons his flock; 2) a
woman who has carelessly lost a coin; 3) a foolish, dysfunctional
family. The message is thus that if even these three foolish examples
give us people who are able to recognize the need to return the lost to
fellowship, how much more so should God welcome the repentant sinner?

This is a direct slap in the face to the Pharisees (who, by
implication, are foolish for keeping sinners at arms’ length and
refusing to welcome them, much less aid them in finding a place with
God). It may also subtly indicate that things that outwardly appear
foolish and shameful hide within them a God-given principle -- just as
the cross appears to have been a case of Jesus (divinity) dying a
shameful death, which obscures, to those unwilling to see, God’s triumph
through the Resurrection.

The story of the prodigal thus indeed has a message about God’s
covenant grace extended to sinners. However, it is not quite the same
message being found by those who see in the parable either a father who
is meant to be the Father, or an analogy to the covenant of grace – and
thus provides little to substantiate a relationship with God in
familiar, personal terms to the degree supposed.
With that in review, we now turn to our two new entries.

John MacArthur’s Tale of Two Sons

MacArthur’s commentary on the parable was apparently inspired by
his readings of Kenneth Bailey’s material on it, as he lists no other
scholarly source. Oddly, thanks to Bailey, MacArthur acknowledges many
of the same cultural facts noted above, such as that father was engaged
in shameful behavior (see more below), and should have commanded, not
pleaded with, the older son (which was a serious violation of the social
hierarchy of authority). However, in order to get around the
implications of these and other texts, he frequently speculates by
adding to the story what is not in the text.

One interesting variation is that MacArthur thinks the father in
the story is meant to represent Jesus, not God the Father. [33] However,
this does not change any of our points otherwise. [33]

Let’s consider some of the questions from above as MacArthur answers them.
Did the prodigal son actually go out and sin with the money he inherited? Our answer is no. In contrast, MacArthur [60-1] claims the prodigal spent money “in the pursuit of wickedness”.

Naturally, the elder son’s description of harlots forms the basis
for his case. MacArthur admits that some commentators think it is a
false association the elder son is making; how does he answer this? In
his words: “If the Prodigal was completely innocent of that charge, I
think Jesus would have said so, because it would have reinforced His
case against the elder son’s own bad attitude.”

Yes, that is the entirety of MacArthur’s answer! It is, however,
misguided: Jesus would not need to “say so” because his audience would
be more than familiar with the practice of deviance labeling, as well as
the role envy would play in invoking someone to resort to such
labeling. Indeed, the very act of labeling all by itself would have
“reinforced the case against the elder son’s own bad attitude.”

From there, MacArthur attempts to reinforce his interpretation
with speculative descriptions of how the Prodigal lived in sin, and goes
as far as saying, “...if he could spend away the family fortune so
rapidly without spending any money on loose women, he probably spent it
for something even worse.” This, then, would be an example of adding on
to the text what cannot be found there. Clearly, MacArthur’s
descriptions is more motivated by his wish to see the Prodigal as “a
symbol of every unredeemed sinner...the evil motives that drove the
Prodigal are the natural tendencies of every fallen human heart” [79]
than it is by what can be found in the text.

Did the Prodigal repent? Our answer was that there was no
real evidence of this; MacArthur disagrees. [86] Indeed he assures us
that the Prodigal’s confession “was not merely a superficial ploy to
regain his father’s sympathy, or a quick-and-dirty scheme to recover the
comforts of his old life” but rather a “heartfelt, deep repentance”
and indeed “one of the best and clearest examples of true repentance in
all of Scripture.”

MacArthur does not appeal to the description of the son “coming
to himself” as evidence of repentance, so what does he offer to support
the claim that this is “one of the best and clearest examples of true
repentance in all of Scripture”? His reasons amount to four, if we
divide them charitably.

First, he says, this must have been true repentance because the
Prodigal’s response was “thought through”! Let me assure readers that
unrepentant criminals are not short on “thinking through” and
“rehearsing” their confessions as a calculated way of achieving their
selfish goals.

Second, MacArthur notes, true repentance begins “with an accurate
assessment one own condition.” [89] That may be so, but so likewise,
unrepentant criminals are seldom oblivious to their actual situation.

Third, MacArthur indicates that repentance to salvation involves
not just change of mind, but “a fundamental worldview change” and “a
powerful, penetrating, soul-shattering, life-altering,
attitude-changing, wholesale U-turn.” While we only partially disagree
(after all, a Jewish person who repents would require less of a change
in worldview than an atheist does!) it is little but imagination for
MacArthur to see just in the Prodigal’s “very first thoughts” (!)
evidence of a “markedly different man, from the inside out”. That cannot
be wrested from the smattering of words offered in the parable.

Finally, MacArthur says [101] that the “ultimate proof his
repentance was genuine” was that the Prodigal made his confession
directly to his father! It is hard to see how this proves a genuine
repentance; after all, to whom would the Prodigal make his confession
otherwise in order for it to be most effective? And again, the criminal
is far from being someone unwilling to confess to their victims if it
serves their purposes.

In sum, none of these points adequately provides evidence of a
true repentance (as opposed to a self-serving confession) by the
Prodigal.

Other ideological interpolations. I said that MacArthur
frequently adds to the parable in order to make it seem more like his
interpretation is valid. Here are some examples:

111-112: MacArthur adds in details of the father “scanning the
horizon daily” from some high vantage point for his son because, “How
else could he have seen him while he was still a long way off?” I can
only say that MacArthur has apparently not lived in a flat place like
Florida. No vantage point would be needed; or else, it is a simple
matter for village gossip to have spread from those working in the
fields into the town itself.

113: We are told that the father running “illustrates the
truth that God is slow to anger and swift to forgive.” Given that, as
MacArthur even admits, an old man running would look like a fool to his
fellows (in that culture, old men only proceeded at a stately, measured
pace to preserve their honor; and by lifting his robe, he would be
“showing leg” and thus violating social codes concerning exposure), it
is hard to see this as illustrating such a truth, unless we wish to
posit it in a qal wahomer fashion as we have (that is, the lesser
example of the father validates the greater example of God/Jesus).
Later MacArthur acknowledges that the father humiliated himself, but
says (130) that this reflects the humiliation of Christ on cross. Again,
this could only be sustained at best as a qal wahomer, especially since the father receives no vindication after his self-shaming.

155, 177f: MacArthur invents the idea that the elder son was
not invited to the party for the younger son because he’d be a “wet
blanket,” the father having known that he was evil and selfish from his
past deeds. Needless to say, none of this is justified by the text. At
most, one commentator has pointed out that in asking for a kid to
celebrate with his friends, some distance is indicated in that it was
normal to celebrate with family. However, the word used, “friend,” is
the same one we have noted at the start of this article; it is not clear
enough who these “friends” are (they could refer to business
associates) to indicate whether celebration with these persons is
somehow in conflict with celebration with family. It may be the case,
but it is simply not clear. In any event there is no justification for
ascribing to the older son any particular evil or selfish past deeds
that would distinguish him from any other person.
MacArthur attempts to support this imaginative explanation by noting
that the elder son claims never to have violated the father’s commands;
therefore, MacArthur says, he must be a proud hypocrite. Really? Then
what are we to make of Paul’s profession to have been blameless in terms
of the law before he became a Christian (Phil. 3:6)?

An Earnest Inquiry

With that, we now turn to our second “guest,” one of our readers
who made some earnest inquiries about the prior article. Some of what
was offered are questions we will answer; others are objections to our
interpretation. I have reformulated some of these points to serve as
inquiries that might come from anyone.

Why did the father run to his son and kiss him and hug his
neck? That does seem rather intimate, regardless of who the father
represents. Why did he do this, and what does it signify?

By our reading the father ran because he was acting as quickly as
possible to prevent his son from being stoned or killed by the other
villagers who would regard him as a deviant. The fact that he had
abandoned his family made him an object of shame; thus as well the
“welcome party” was a way of getting the villagers to also accept the
son back into village life (and also forgive him for setting the bad
example of running away in the first place – something the villagers
would fear their own sons might be inspired to do).

The shows of affection were likewise a means of protecting the
son from reprisal, and also indicated that the father had accepted him
back into the family. Intimacy would play no automatic role in this.
However, it remains that these would all be seen as shameful expressions
by the father.

If a deviant person was viewed as “dead” or “lost” doesn't
that fit in perfectly with the typical analogy as well as the “later
soteriology”? Yes, but whether that “later soteriology” is present is the very point at issue.

With the 99 sheep, some commentaries say we should assume the
shepherd had someone watching his flock while he was away, so maybe he
wasn’t foolish. Maybe. But if that is the case, then maybe we should consider this in light of John 10:11-13:

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for
the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own
the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and
fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The
hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the
sheep.

By this reckoning, the shepherd is still foolish for leaving his
sheep in the care of a hireling. Perhaps it is simply best to say that
this would be a question, either way, of pressing the parallel too far;
this is a danger only if we take it too literally rather than as a qal wahomer.

2 comments:

Hello, First let me say I really love this site and the other ones that J.P. Holding authors. It has taught me a lot and I suggest it to many people struggling in faith because there isn't many sites out there with such in depth answers.

I was hoping you could answer a couple of off topic questions perhaps with some sort of in depth blog post when you have the time. If not, that is OK, as I can see you are very busy.

I wanted to say that I'm just learning about Grace, so I haven't put my complete trust in it which I guess means I'm not saved. I would very much like to have the assurance of salvation. I think I have been a works based "Christian" all this time. I'm trying to find answers to some scriptures that really seem to trip me up when it comes to believing in the gospel of grace.

One of the passages is Revelations chapter 3:

To the Church in Sardis

3 “To the angel[a] of the church in Sardis write:

These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits[b] of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

It seems to my very uneducated eyes that it's saying if we don't overcome we will lose our salvation. It doesn't seem to be saying that the church stopped trusting Christ as their savior, instead it seems to be saying that some are sinning and will lose their salvation eventually if they do not repent at some point.

I won't add but one more that really trips me up. Though I can think of quite a lot more than these two. The second one can be found in Galatians 5:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

This confuses me because I thought that the bible said we would not be judged by the law because by the law is the knowledge of sin, yet the above scripture seems to very much say that those who sin will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I know that a true Christian will not live in continual sin, or so that is what I have been told, but Paul is warning Christians here as if it's possible for them to live in sin and let them know if they do, they won't make it.

I hope someone can do some blog posts on these "law" scriptures in the NT because the body of Christ really needs it. It is causing confusion with a lot of young Christians that I come across, not just me.

Anyways thanks for what you do here it is appreciated and again I understand if you don't have time for this right now.